The Earl of Listowel: rose to call attention to the key findings and recommendations of Safeguarding Children: the second joint Chief Inspectors' Report on Arrangements to Safeguard Children and to the pending Government response; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak in this debate on this important and authoritative report. I am aware of the limits of my own experience, and I am most grateful that a former chief inspector of prisons, a former director of social services, a former chief inspector of social services and parents of children with disability, together with many other experienced contributors, will be participating this morning.
	I intend to highlight the importance of this report, attempt to put into context, give a definition of safeguarding, look at the sources of the information in the report, consider some of its themes, look particularly at social work and consider the report's recommendations and their implementation. The report has personal importance to me because I am sick and tired of seeing young people entering the doors of organisations such as Centrepoint who have been so damaged and have experienced such prolonged neglect that they can no longer accept help or be given it and who are eventually excluded from the hostel or simply drift back on to the streets again. If we could intervene more effectively to support children in their families and to support their families, some of these young people would avoid a very unhappy outcome.
	I also tabled this debate for a personal reason: I am very concerned about those who work directly with children and families, and the report highlights particular concerns about social workers. I shall discuss those concerns in detail.
	I note that your Lordships are concerned not simply with narrow issues concerning vulnerable children but with the general public good. I draw noble Lords' attention to the fact that we are an ageing population. In seven or eight years' time there will be as many people over the age of 65 as there are under the age of 16. According to Eurostat, by 2010 deaths in the EU25 will outnumber births. It is estimated that on current trends, by 2025 there will be a shortfall of 20 million workers across the European Union. Our children have never been more important to us in terms of the success of our economy.
	When we fail to intervene on those occasions when it is possible to do so, and fail to support families and children early in their development, we pay a great price later. A survey in the 1990s pointed to the fact that on leaving care 25 per cent of young women were mothers and that within a year 50 per cent were mothers. The Social Exclusion Unit's report drew attention to the fact that 25 per cent of the prison population had experience of care. In a recent survey of a narrow survey group by the National Children's Bureau it was found that 20 per cent of children in custody had been through care and that a further 25 per cent had some experience of care. So for the first 20 per cent there had been particular statutory duties towards them.
	The context of this debate is perhaps best set by the report of my noble friend Lord Laming into the death of Victoria Climbié. He pointed to the failures in accountability and to the failures in the sharing of information. Also, highlighted in the report were the circumstances in which the social workers operated. At the time Victoria's case was handled by Brent all the duty social workers had received their training abroad and were on temporary contracts. Several workers in the child protection team were also recruited on a temporary basis. It was a team under pressure, overbusy and very short of permanent and experienced staff. Given the caseload in June 1999, it was very hard for people to stand back and consider what was happening. That we had lost our ability to be social workers was the point underlined by my noble friend, Lord Laming. That was the situation in Brent. In Haringey, a social worker was supposed to manage a maximum of 12 cases and she was managing 19. There were very serious concerns about the quality of supervision.
	The first report from the joint chief inspectors landed on our desks at a similar time to that report's publication. In the mean time we have had the 10-year plan for change from the National Health Service—the National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services. All these factors are fed into current government policy, and the Children Act 2004 established five outcomes for children, to which all agencies must work to improve the futures of our children.
	The definition of "safeguarding" is a coin with two sides according to the inspectors. First, it means to take all reasonable means to prevent harm to children by avoiding the circumstances in which they may be harmed; and, secondly, when their welfare is being undermined, it means to take action together, according to clear procedures and protocols, to take that child out of harm's way. The inspectors also draw attention to the comments of Sir William Utting—the need to be proactive in order to protect children's welfare. I remember well what Sir William Utting said in his 1997 report People like us. He said that the best protection for children is an environment of overall excellence.
	The sources of the report were the inspectorates which cover all our public services. They have undertaken specific reports into safeguarding. It also draws on the ongoing reports that they make of institutions. In the course of inspection this year I have visited a children's home, a local authority secure unit and an immigration removal centre. Inspectors have been nurses, teachers and former prison governors.
	Perhaps there is some concern that inspectors are being asked to cover some areas with which they are not completely comfortable. I heard a children's home manager say she was concerned that the inspector did not have the experience to do the job that he was undertaking; but overall my sense is that professionals are looking very carefully and rigorously at what is being delivered.
	Furthermore, the Children's Rights Director has consulted with children and has reported on children in boarding schools, and, very importantly, on children who are privately fostered; and recently I attended a meeting where he was consulting with young carers.
	So, this report is the most authoritative source of information for us to see how things have changed since the 2002 report of my noble friend Lord Laming.
	Themes covered by the report include how far prioritising and safeguarding has improved. In 2002 area child protection committees were often poorly funded and low priority was given to their work. Since then, the inspectors have found significant improvement in that area and they look forward to the establishment of the new, replacement local area safeguarding boards and the possibilities that they will bring with them. There is a distinct sense of improvement in safeguarding, but there are continuing concerns, especially regarding children with disabilities, children who are 15, 16 or 17 with mental health and chronic health conditions, 15, 16 and 17 year-olds placed inappropriately in custody and adoption placements.
	I had experience some years ago of working with and caring for a child who was aggressive and large for his age. I was concerned that he might hurt other children or run away. It was only on the third day of working with that child that I learned from what he said that he had just been placed in a new adoption placement. It was scandalous that I did not know that that child was going through such a difficult time. If he had been excluded from that childcare placement because it had broken down, it might have jeopardised that new adoption placement. How would he have felt if that had fallen through?
	The report considers the voice of the child. Children's voices are clearly being attended to far more effectively than in the past, although there is still considerable concern that what they say is not feeding through into action. There is concern about overly heavy-handed use of force to control behaviour. At the local authority secure unit that I visited, the inspector was careful not to step into the boys' rooms and warned me to be extremely careful but, at the end of the inspection, she said how remarkably behaviour had improved in the short time since her last inspection. She put that down to a change in the overall policy of behaviour management. One of the managers of several children's homes that were grouped together emphasised the importance of a direct relationship with young people. Good thinking can lead to the avoidance of the use of unnecessary force—sometimes it is necessary.
	There have been improvements in identifying welfare concerns and acting on them. Although the overall number of children on the child protection register has not changed since 2002–04, in some areas there is better co-operation, avoiding leaving it until the stage when a child protection intervention has to be made. Children are being supported in their families by other agencies earlier on. However, significant concerns remain, especially for children with disabilities. A further specific and important concern is that thresholds in some authorities for child protection intervention are set too high because of resource problems. Thirdly, because some social services are unable to respond to families requiring support, other agencies do not refer children when concerns about their welfare first emerge. That means that some families are subject to avoidable pressure. Children may experience preventable abuse or neglect and relationships between social services and other agencies may become strained. There is concern that there is not the capacity as things stand fully to implement the Government's agenda in this area.
	There is considerable concern about asylum-seeking children, especially those placed in immigration removal centres. One understands that this area needs very careful management. There have been improvements in the workforce in some areas there and it is encouraging that this year there has been some improvement in recruiting field social workers. However, the report highlights the continuing difficulty in recruiting and retaining social workers. The vacancy rate for children's social workers has improved, from 11.8 per cent to 11.4 per cent; however, in the same period, use of temporary agency workers increased from 1 per cent to 2.3 per cent. That is an extremely expensive and unsatisfactory way to meet needs.
	The crisis in social work has endured for many years, as my noble friend Lord Northbourne continually points out. That has very serious implications for children's welfare. Social workers do not receive the supervision that they need to do that important work. The Government need a stronger focus on social work. They need someone like Louise Casey, with her good work in the Rough Sleepers Unit on anti-social behaviour, to focus on understanding the problem and to address it with energy.
	There is not time for me to speak further now. All the important recommendations of this authoritative report must be implemented effectively. I look forward to hearing from the Minister details of how implementation will take place, what sort of time-scale there will be and who will be responsible for implementing each recommendation. I see that my time is up. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with permission, I shall repeat a Statement about developments in Northern Ireland during the summer made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"First, I know the House will want to join me in marking, with sadness, the passing of two very significant figures from the Northern Ireland political stage, Mo Mowlam and Gerry Fitt. They were politicians of great courage, passion and, above all, humanity, and we all, in different ways, feel their loss.
	"On 28 July, we saw the statement by the IRA that its leadership had ordered an end to its armed campaign. As I said in my letter to Members of both Houses at the time, that was important, indeed historic.
	"But, of course, it was crucial that the words were carried through in actions, actions that had to be independently verified. Two weeks ago, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported that the IRA had placed its arms completely and verifiably beyond use.
	"Not many years ago, unionists and republicans were agreed on one thing at least: the IRA would never give up its guns; it would never give up its explosives: 'Not a bullet. Not an ounce'. But the 'impossible' has happened: the war machine that brought death and destruction to thousands of people in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and beyond—and indeed to this Parliament—has gone. It is something that all Members of this House have wanted to see happen for so many years, and many feared they never would.
	"But, as immensely significant as IRA decommissioning undoubtedly is, there is more to be done in demonstrating that the IRA has put paramilitary activity behind it for good.
	"The next formal report from the Independent Monitoring Commission, focusing on paramilitary activity, is expected in the next week or so. That will give an indication of whether progress has been made in meeting the equally important requirement for a verifiable end to all paramilitary and criminal activity. But as it will have covered only several weeks since 28 July, the two Governments have asked the IMC to produce an additional report in January to reinforce the crucial verification process.
	"The Government believe that the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland are best served by local decision making through a devolved assembly. That requires the rebuilding of trust and confidence and we recognise that that will take time. But if these IMC reports confirm an end to IRA activity, then the time will have come to move the process forward.
	"The summer also saw a murderous loyalist feud, the vicious attacks on the police and Army by loyalist paramilitaries and sickening sectarian attacks, including obscene threats to desecrate graves in Carnmoney cemetery—all of which disfigured Northern Ireland in the eyes of the world.
	"Of course this outrageous behaviour appalled the overwhelming majority of people in the unionist community and I very much welcomed the opportunity to stand with the honourable Member for North Antrim in his constituency, which had seen sectarian attacks on schools, and join him in condemning this barbarous behaviour.
	"It has taken a long time for the republican movement to acknowledge that violence does not pay. It is high time that the loyalist paramilitaries learnt it too. My decision last month to specify the UVF/Red Hand Commando sent out a clear signal to those who would persist with that philosophy that they are wrong and that they must stop immediately.
	"There remains outstanding the question of whether a financial penalty should be imposed on the PUP following the recommendation made to me earlier in the year by the IMC. I intend to watch developments carefully over the next few months, in particular the role that the PUP plays in attempting to secure peace and stability in the loyalist community, before reaching a decision on this in the context of the January report from the commission to which I have referred.
	"With my deputy, the honourable Member for Delyn, David Hanson, I have been visiting loyalist communities, meeting community representatives, clergy, teachers and local residents. Where any community has legitimate concerns, we will address them. But it is equally important that there is political leadership to enable these communities to join in the huge progress that Northern Ireland has made in recent years.
	!-- label=qnpa_16 --"The summer also demonstrated beyond doubt that there is one organisation that we can all rely on to uphold the right of everyone to live in peace. Officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland have displayed exemplary courage and professionalism in protecting life and preserving order, despite being attacked with live rounds, blast bombs, petrol bombs and other missiles. We should be under no illusion, following the Whiterock parade, that loyalist paramilitaries were clearly intent on murdering police officers. Police videos also showed some Orangemen taking off their collarettes and hurling rocks at the police front lines—behaviour that I know the vast majority in the Orange Order deplore.
	"Even with those vicious attacks on them—and let us not forget that nearly 100 of them sustained serious injuries in a single weekend—the police remained committed to their task. But they can be effective only if they receive the support of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. Time and time again they have demonstrated their determination to protect all the citizens of Northern Ireland. It is time that everyone in Northern Ireland acknowledged this—from Sinn Fein to the Orange Order to the loyalist communities—and got behind the police to support them in doing their job.
	"The transformation of policing in Northern Ireland in line with the Patten reforms is one of the great success stories of the Good Friday agreement. It has led to the policing arrangements in Northern Ireland being admired around the world as a model for change. We remain fully committed to that model in the future.
	"A key element in that success is the role played by the Policing Board. I can tell the House today that I have decided to reconstitute the board from 1 April 2006, with political appointees selected in proportion to the 2003 election results using the d'Hondt formula.
	"So what do the months ahead hold for Northern Ireland? The Government will continue to do all they can to facilitate progress towards restoration. But we hope that all Northern Ireland's politicians will seize the opportunity that this summer's developments present.
	"The Government will also take forward work in implementing those aspects of the Belfast agreement where work is incomplete or ongoing. We will, for example, continue to support those bodies and institutions that work for the benefit of Northern Ireland on a north/south and east/west basis.
	"Some areas of the joint declaration of 2003 were dependent on acts of completion by the IRA. And difficult though some of these will be for some people to accept, there should be no surprises since the Government have long made clear that certain developments would follow on such acts of completion.
	"First: normalisation. In the 2003 Joint Declaration, the Government set out proposals to normalise the security profile across Northern Ireland when there was an enabling environment. Following the IRA statement, I published an updated programme, on the advice of the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding.
	"I want to assure the House that my first and over-riding priority—and that of the Chief Constable and the GOC—remains the safety and security of the people of Northern Ireland. We will not do anything that will compromise that. But the security arrangements we have in place must be in proportion to the level of threat. The normalisation programme published in August, a copy of which I have had placed in the Library, will see the creation of an environment that will allow the return of conventional policing across Northern Ireland, something which all sections of the community should welcome.
	"The other commitment set out in the Joint Declaration was that we would reinvigorate discussions with the political parties on the shared goal of devolving criminal justice and policing. The Government will want to explore the scope for doing that over the months ahead. In the meantime we will bring forward enabling legislation for later implementation, when there is agreement among the parties in Northern Ireland.
	"We will also take forward plans to appoint a victims' commissioner. I very much hope to make an announcement about this shortly because the many victims of Northern Ireland's troubles deserve much better recognition and support. We will never forget them.
	"The House will know that we have undertaken to legislate to deal with the position of individuals connected with paramilitary crimes committed before the Belfast agreement, dealing with those suspects categorised as "on the runs". As the House will recall, these proposals were published alongside the Joint Declaration as long ago as May 2003. This is not an amnesty. Nevertheless, the implementation of those proposals will be painful for many people. I fully understand this. But the Government believe that it is a necessary part of the process of closing the door on violence for ever.
	"Notwithstanding the recent turbulence, huge progress has been made this summer. We need to build on that progress.
	"The people of Northern Ireland have shown remarkable patience and resilience over the years. We owe it to them not to be deflected from doing all we can to see a peaceful, stable and prosperous Northern Ireland in which all traditions are cherished and respected. They deserve no less".
	That, my Lords, concludes the Statement.